Isobel Preston was married around 1736, Kettle area, Fife (not been able to find a record of the marriage). Her second male child is John born 1739, her first female child is Euphan, born 1742 , so you might expect her parents to be John Preston and Euphan Someone. (Euphan/Eupham is an old form of a name from the same root as Euphemia as far as I remember)
There is a birth of an Isobel Preston registered in Cupar on August 4th 1712 "Daughter to John Preston at Cults", so in the right area at about the right time, but no mother mentioned, as is typical of Cupar OPR around this date.
A search for a marriage of a John Preston to a Euphan Someone produces two likely matches:
26/08/1715 PRESTON JOHN EUPHAM CURRER/FR297 1226 M Kettle /FIFE 435/ 0010 0297
26/08/1715 PRESTON JOHN EUPHAN CURRER/ M Markinch /FIFE 447/ 0010
and checking them they are both the same couple: John was from Markinch and Euphan from Kettle. Only problem is that the marriage happened in 1715, three years after the birth of Isobel...
...but, then I thought either that they are the wrong John & Euphan OR that perhaps Isobel's mother may have died, maybe in childbirth, father John goes on to marry Euphan a couple of years later, and Euphan then brings up young Isobel and Isobel regards her as her mother..
(The Euphan and John who married in 1715 appear to have had two children at least: Janet 1717, Thomas 1719, both born Markinch. In the Fife death index, there looks to be another child who died as a baby in 1716 and it looks like Euphan herself died in 1721, aged 34)
However, looking for that possible first marriage for John Preston on SP produced:
30/12/1711 PRESTON JOHN NAME NOT GIVEN//FR1206 M Kettle /FIFE 435/ 0040 0068
The "marriage" is on a page of accounts which include the takings from collections at church, monies brought in by the elders, income from mortcloths etc.
When it comes to John Preston the wording is:
John Prestons fallen pledge 003--00--00
So looks like he paid three pounds. But the strangest thing is that the name above his is:
Eupham Curriers fallen pledge 003--00--00
which seems very odd. A late 1711 marriage would fit beautifully even if it does mean Euphan Currier was about 7-8 weeks pregnant on the day! - but I'm not understanding just exactly what is meant by "fallen pledge" (given too that there appear to be a couple of other mentions of these on the page of a Thomas Lumsdean and a Catharin Robs but they are not mentioned together but on different days) There is no Kirk Session available for Kettle at this time or that would be my first port of call!
And why, if "fallen pledges" indicate a marriage are a couple of the same names, with a Euphan also from Kettle, getting married 4 years later??
Puzzled.... any light shedding welcomed, especially if you are familiar with "fallen pledges"!!
Best wishes
Lesley
but were listed on different days as they had appeared for rebuking on different days and so been absolved on differing dates.